Commuting - I am saving my two gallons of gas a week !

Anyone see the news accounts that if each motorist were to save two gallons of gasoline per week, gasoline prices would drop about .50 Cents per gallon.
I commute on bike at least once per week to work, plus I try to do local errands on the bike whenever possible....That saves about four gallons per week, so I am over my quota.. Americans don't lessen their automania they might soon be paying $3 a gallon...Almost competitive with European gas prices. And remember their fleet gasoline mileage is far better than ours.
As least in Europe for your $5 / gallon you get goodies such as good bus, train, and subway services, along with a program of alternative transportation such as bike lanes.

Anyone see the news accounts that if each motorist were to save two gallons of gasoline per week, gasoline prices would drop about .50 Cents per gallon.
<snip>

my mother, bless her heart, wants so badly to get out of the car and onto a bike that she just went and bought one of those little scooter bikes. i think it's ugly as sin but ya won't catch me saying it in her presents. little bugger runs on a hub motor and has like a 300 pound battery (give or take 270 pounds). i'm so proud of her even if she needs the assistance from a motor she's getting out of her car and getting into the real world. i just keep telling her even if she's only spinning the peddles and not really doing much work she's at least spinning the peddles.... (i'm trying to encourage here)

last week we took the ferry into seattle for the bike expo and i got to show her all kinds of nice gear she can now be a part of and get to wear. (she's still not sure about the no underwear thing, but is totally jazzed about buying new clothes. what woman wouldn't be?) and she got to ask questions and my goodness did she run w/ that one. had to drag her from a few venders. but i think the whole thing was good for her. she'll be a biking mamma soon! *wipes tear from eye* i'm so proud...

and she just keeps going on about how she'll be saving money on not paying for gas, and i keep saying, "yes mamma, your so right. you go girl!" i think that dad's starting to get into the spirit of things. we may have another hub motored scooter bike in the near future for him too. which if they actually use them will be much better than the two bikes they bought when last "I" had bike fevor. they have yet to be ridden. only time they have seen any road time is when i dust mom's off for a spin once a year while i'm in town. poor depraved and unloved little beauties... *sigh* some peoples parents. but i'll still be quite the happy child for them if they get out and put some road wear on them thar' tyres.

cheers
kat

>>>As least in Europe for your $5 / gallon you get goodies such as good bus, train, and subway services, along with a program of alternative transportation such as bike lanes.<<<<<

It depends on where you live in this country. I have plenty of good bus, train and subways services and really don't need to ride a car or bicycle for that matter. My brother and his wife live in the burbs where there is only poor bus service and they have to drive cars everywhere.

If you want to live in a city that has poor public transportation, that is a choice you've made. I can travel the entire New York City subway system (several hundred miles) for less than $1.50. If I wanted to transfer on any bus system, it's also included in that $1.50!

I really don't know and could care less about the price of gas. Since I don't own a car, the price of gas has no effect on me as it does the motorist.

Steve. Americans should care about the price of gas for no reason other than our economic security. What little I read about economics fits into the saying,"Asia lends, America spends.' A country that exports $50 billion a month in cash reserves to foreign banks is not long before an economic crash.
In fact, the weak dollar, has to be a factor in increasing the cost of gas and everything else.
Many countries holding dollars are dumping them for euros. The Saudi's have inferred that investing in America is a mistake for their own economic security. They have lost faith in the U.S. economy ever since Enron..
To them investing in dollars is like buying Mexican peso before their big bust in the late 90's....No one wants to be holding a currency that is worthless.
Look at the reserves of banks in Tokyo, China.
U.S. banks are like small town branch banks to the big boys. So the price of gas is just the top of the iceberg. But the petro dollars going elsewhere are a huge factor in our economic decline.
So I claim, our cycling is crucial to our economic well being. As cyclists, pat ourselves on the back.

Anyone see the news accounts that if each motorist were to save two gallons of gasoline per week, gasoline prices would drop about .50 Cents per gallon.

Who cares what the price does? I think you should be more impressed with the money your saving yourself in gas bills, plus reducing the maintenance costs on your car (which I imagine doesn't come cheap). Isn't that good enough for you?


Americans don't lessen their automania they might soon be paying $3 a gallon...

In which case they'll deserve it. It's the old law of supply and demand. Mind you, is that such a bad thing? We've got higher prices than that out here, and personally I want them to go higher still ($5/litre). They would too if the government didn't spend so many of my tax dollars subsidising it. I can think of plenty of recipients more deserving of that subsidy.


As least in Europe for your $5 / gallon you get goodies such as good bus, train, and subway services, along with a program of alternative transportation such as bike lanes.

Again, supply and demand. America would get them too if more Americans showed an implication to use them.

Chris...Public transportation systems of all types don't just happen. It takes some public investment. Here in the US we once had a decent system of trams, but the car industry did all in their power to have them removed.
With enough bike lanes I am sure they would eventually be used. Same with subways. I just do not think LA had some different spark from say New York and decided to not build subways or trams. I can't believe that if subways took commuters efficiently and more cost effective from the 'Valley' to downtown LA the subways would not be crowded.
A little seed money can encourage lots of interest when commuters find an alternative to gridlock.

Chris...Public transportation systems of all types don't just happen. It takes some public investment. Here in the US we once had a decent system of trams, but the car industry did all in their power to have them removed.
With enough bike lanes I am sure they would eventually be used. Same with subways. I just do not think LA had some different spark from say New York and decided to not build subways or trams. I can't believe that if subways took commuters efficiently and more cost effective from the 'Valley' to downtown LA the subways would not be crowded.
A little seed money can encourage lots of interest when commuters find an alternative to gridlock.

Cyclezealot:

Read "Downtown, It's rise and fall, 1880-1950 by Robert M. Fogelson" and it will tell you all you need to know why only a handful of cities in this nation developed subways and the majority did not.

The city planners at the turn of the century in California did not want a New York City subway system because it was less expensive to build roads. The decision to sprawl was cheaper and considered better than having all traffic head to one central location. Furthermore, the planners did not like the the elevated lines which plague the other boroughs in New York city as they are very noisy and dirty. The type of urban developement in LA relies very heavy on cheap inexpensive fuel and motor transport. As a result, a good portion of our nations economy is based on the building, manufacture, servicing and financing of the automobile.

>>>>>I can't believe that if subways took commuters efficiently and more cost effective from the 'Valley' to downtown LA the subways would not be crowded.<<<<<

I'm sure if there was a subway that took commuters from the 'Valley' to downtown LA it would be very crowded. The New York City subway was never ment to be empty. They're very packed during rush hour and this is good otherwise there would be no reason to build the system in the first place.

You make a good point that we (U.S) have become very vulnerable as a result of our oil dependantcy. If you think about it, we are no longer in the driver's seat when it comes to controling our international policy. There is nothing we can do about it. As Chris said, supply and demand will determine wheather or not we can continue to drive our SUV's. It will determine if we can continue to sprawl as a nation.

Guess what? There's not a thing we can do about it.

think one of the other reasons (and i could be TOTALLY off on this one) that california did no go w/ the subway route is also the fact of all the earthquakes that california has in a year. (and that number has dramatically increased btw) at least this is what they taught us in school. something about the water table in the lower valley's in cali being to high for tunneling or something... which is not like their high des... went through an 8.2 back in 2000 and although we had 8' waves (and i do mean 8 foot waves!) running through the yard and the streets, because the water table in the high des is so low i didn't even have one picture fall off the wall or a cabnet door open. everything just rode w/ it.

btw that 8.2 ran for 48 seconds and only one injury was reported. it was on the eve of the san fransico earthquake and lasted 3 seconds longer. only real damage was one over pass fell and a train was derailed. (lady fell out of her sleeping car and broke her shoulder, which accounts for the one injury reported.)

cheers
kat

I had not thought being in a high seismic activity zone is that much of a factor.
Cities all over the world share such destinctions..Tokyo, Mexico City, and San Francisco..San Francisco has a very successful subway system. If not subways, then surface trains are an alternative.
In fact L.A. has built a subway. It stretches out towards the Valley, going through the Hollywood area. Seems it eventually will stretch to the LA airport.
There must be a way to construct subways in active geological zones.

It should be pointed out that LA, along with the majority of major US cities, had extensive electric trolley service. In Los Angeles, it was very well documented (and later brought to trial) that General Motors intentionally bought up and forced the trolley lines out of business to replace them with new GM busses.

A few things perpetuated car dependency in this country, primarily after WWII. First, a market was 'created' for cars. Large, expensive durable goods were needed to keep the economy rolling after the war production stopped. In order to facilitate the need for such an item, a new world had to be created to accommodate this machine, or else they would not sell nearly as well as they have. Real estate developers and automakers had to create communities that catered only to the car, while simultaneously dismantling any feasible mass transit (so they buy more cars, dammit!). Car ownership, in the 50's more than ever, was an image based on status. To be viewed as successful, you had to 1) own a nice car and 2) live in one of these 'hot new' suburban tracts (which car ownership was a necessity). The glory of car ownership and the image that other means of transport were plebian was created and hammered into a generation of impressionable young boomers, just as their parents wanted to perpetuate a “time of plenty” to distance themselves from the Depression.

The Federal Interstate system was another key to mass car ownership. Heavily subsidized, the interstate was cheaper initially to build than other forms of transit conduits. To enjoy this new high-speed device, one had to own a car. Even after the advent of popular commercial airline travel, interstate travel continues to be as popular as ever.

There are many great books on how cities can and do function on a human level. The best book I’ve read in recent memory on the subject has been Alex Marshall’s How Cities Work. Of course there is the quintessential Jane Jacobs classic, The Death and Life of Great American Cities as well as her excellent follow up The Economy of Cities. Asphalt Nation, by Jane Holtz Kay is another excellent resource. A few others are worth mentioning, though academically they’re might be more opinion than hard fact or have been written for ulterior motives. There is of course the classic The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York, by Robert Caro, that outlines the rampant bureaucratic liberties taken when the automobile invasion was under full swing. I happen to really enjoy James Howard Kunstler’s cranky and biting romp through uglified America in the Nowhere series of books (ie The Geography of Nowhere, Home from Nowhere, The City in Mind. Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk’s “Suburban Nation” nicely illustrates good and bad urbanism, although more times than not take liberties with logical yet unsubstantiated claims. Good reading regardless.

As least in Europe for your $5 / gallon you get goodies such as good bus, train, and subway services, along with a program of alternative transportation such as bike lanes.

We shouldn't ask for bike lanes. Bike lanes force bikes to ride in the most debris and pothole-filled parts of the road. The lanes also create lots of dangerous car/bike interactions where bikes want to turn left or cars want to turn right.

Many hard-core bicyclists hate bike paths, but I like them, as long as they don't intersect with roads very often. The hard-core folks are right to insist on equal rights and responsibilities on the road. Bike lanes on roads are a menace to be fought.

Many hard-core bicyclists hate bike paths, but I like them, as long as they don't intersect with roads very often. The hard-core folks are right to insist on equal rights and responsibilities on the road. Bike lanes on roads are a menace to be fought.
The majority of my commute is a bike path, and I prefer it to my previous, non-path commute. It's a well designed path, though.

Thanks..Patrick and Steve. The recommended reading sounds like a must for me.
But to show how some countries promote alternative transportation.. Last time or two, visiting Europe I
remember seeing proposed bike routes shown on maps,
throughout most of Europe.
As I recall,it was labeled "Bicycles freeways"
many were already established. Not sure what a bike freeway is, but I would like to think it possible to travel on bike routes uninterpupted, like Americans visualize our freeways for cars..
Any Europeans out there refresh my memory.

There are many great books on how cities can and do function on a human level. The best book I’ve read in recent memory on the subject has been Alex Marshall’s How Cities Work. Of course there is the quintessential Jane Jacobs classic, The Death and Life of Great American Cities as well as her excellent follow up The Economy of Cities. Asphalt Nation, by Jane Holtz Kay is another excellent resource. A few others are worth mentioning, though academically they’re might be more opinion than hard fact or have been written for ulterior motives. There is of course the classic [I]The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York.

Excellent. Your analysis is better than mine.

Robert Moses and his anti-transit mentality still effects New York City to this day. The bridges built during his time do NOT have subways or pedestrian crosswalks. Unbelievable.

I'm going to get a hold of Asphalt Nation soon and Jane Jacobs classic.

Top news on MSN.com is an article on how truckers in California will not move cargo unless the price of gas goes down or their rates go up. It appears the trucking industry has cut the price of their services so low, even a modest increase in diesel fuel puts most of them out of business. In "Trains" magazine this month, they predict an increase in heavy rail because trucking good across the country is about to become alot more expensive making freight transport an attractive alternative. (Can we say inflation!) It doesn't stop there. Farmers are also feeling the squeeze as their tactors need the same fuel that's been going throught the roof in recent months. Has anyone noticed a silence in Washington as our "friends" in Saudia Arabia (Opec) are decreasing production to drive up the price?

Patrick A's analysis was dead on target but it only works if there is a never ending supply of cheap fuel.

Thanks..Patrick and Steve. The recommended reading sounds like a must for me.
But to show how some countries promote alternative transportation.. Last time or two, visiting Europe I
remember seeing proposed bike routes shown on maps,
throughout most of Europe.
As I recall,it was labeled "Bicycles freeways"
many were already established. Not sure what a bike freeway is, but I would like to think it possible to travel on bike routes uninterpupted, like Americans visualize our freeways for cars..
Any Europeans out there refresh my memory.

it's a country road w/ very little traffic. it will usually add a mile or two between road connections but because there is very little traffic and such a beautiful countryside that you don't notice.

also good places to bike in england is along the old roman aquaducts, they go everywhere and it's nice and flat. only problem i've found w/ this route is if it's high summer you get to deal w/ nettles and thorns by the tons. their thorns always seem to be 2 inches long or longer (hedges everywhere to keep the cows in), and nettles go right through bike clothing. if you've never been stung by a nettle it feels like you've ridden through a bee's nest. (nettles grow a hair along their spins and leaves that bike clothing doesn't keep out.) so if you do take this route make sure you've got impenetrible (sp?) tyres an heavy weight clothing on your lower legs and arms. my front panniers kept me pretty protected but my darling got stung pretty good.

the pubs along the aquaduct are pretty cool to check out, and the people are very friendly.

cheers
kat

Since I don't own a car, the price of gas has no effect on me as it does the motorist.

I think you all make pretty good points about the price of gas/oil and our dependence on other nations, etc. But I thought I might point out a glaring contradiction. Dahon.Steve correctly points out that fuel prices, and our dependence on oil effects how we receive our goods (trucking), and how our farmers are able to produce food. In addition many of us use oil to heat our homes, and that bus you are transferring to from the subway probably runs on Deisel. All of this will affect you even if you do not own a car, so it may be safer to state things more realistically like the originator of this string and say I am doing my part.

I hope gas goes up to $10 a gallon. It would definately slow urban sprawl. I would laugh my butt off listening to all h2 owners who bought off road vehicles crying that they couldnt afford the gas. At the least id be extremely pleased if we stopped subsidizing gas.

As many of you have pointed out, the fact of the matter remains that our entire society is dependant in one form or another on fossil fuels, not just automobile folks. How much plastic is on your bike? On your shoes? Any synthetic clothing? From the natural gas heating your water, the fuel that's burned down at the sewage treatment plant, to the machine you're looking at this message on...Nearly all the power and materials are petroleum based or natural gas run. Our food is grown, picked, shipped, and sold using it. Our heat is extracted, piped, burned, and sourced from it. We have built a seeming house of cards; the lynchpin of an empire is this one key resource. I'm no gloom and doom type of guy and I don't buy into 'end of the world' philosophies, but it is becoming more and more apparent that this consume/fuel driven society is going to reach critical mass very soon. There won't be fire and brimstone, but it's going to be an adjustment for sure.

Sustainable communities haven’t really existed for 50 years, but that's what we're going to have to harken back to in order not to fall into some sort of hysterical black hole. That means local farming, renewable sewage treatment, more efficient city and transportation design, more locally produced goods and services.

I think the best bet right now is to find a community that best fits that mold, make personal commitments to contribute to a sustainable economy, and basically set a good example of trying to be sustainable.

I have a car, i like driving, but i can't say i would miss it if it were gone. I can't even fathom how much better my life would be without it, but i live in a boxy suburb and sometimes, driving is the only way(the only way to and from my house to the store is a freeway). If i lived downtown and worked downtown, i wouldnt have a car. Also, i need my car to go the 140 miles from school to home, but when im at school, the only time i use it is to drive home. I think that if everything were based on human power communities would be stronger and closer, with few people leaving their small 50 mile radius in their entire life. I am impressed with how our world is growing, but i am sickened by how much we consume to do so. I think that this nation needs to lead the world in alt. fuel/energy resources, and the best place to start is in fuel cells. i don't think that banning the "steel coffin" is the most efficient solution, but i think it needs to be regulated. One excellent way to regulate it is to make the gas prices soar, force people to seek alt. energy forms. I think that just one year of $8.00 per gallon gasoline would do wonders for the push towards alt. fuel/energy sources.

If you are interested in helping out the push for a better environment and political stability, please help out. Don't be a naysayer sitting on the side of life *****ing about how things are; do something about it.

www.bgsu.edu/colleges/technology/EVI . BGSU EVI, Leading the nation in energy research and development.

I hope gas goes up to $10 a gallon. It would definately slow urban sprawl. I would laugh my butt off listening to all h2 owners who bought off road vehicles crying that they couldnt afford the gas. At the least id be extremely pleased if we stopped subsidizing gas.

With higher fuel prices I doubt we'd be laughing at anyone. As others on this thread have pointed out we are a petroleum dependant society. If prices rise everyone will be hurt by the economic fall out whether or not you own a car. Industries on the front lines, airlines & trucking are already feeling the pinch. If prices go up and stay up our economy goes in the tank. Then everybody pays.

It's actually more fun to watch H2 owners who are clueless stick themselves in snowbanks thinking their truck can drive thru anything.

It's actually more fun to watch H2 owners who are clueless stick themselves in snowbanks thinking their truck can drive thru anything.

Its also hilarious to watch them try to park those things too!

I hope gas goes up to $10 a gallon. It would definately slow urban sprawl. I would laugh my butt off listening to all h2 owners who bought off road vehicles crying that they couldnt afford the gas. At the least id be extremely pleased if we stopped subsidizing gas.

What a brilliant statement !! Yes, let's stick it to the poor minimum wage earners that are barely getting by. Or those of us who maybe have to drop kids off at daycare so we can work to support ourselves.

How about all those people who live outside the cities and urban centers. While our tax dollars go to subsidize your public transportation, we have no alternative but the automobile. Especially in the dead of winter.

Clueless

What a brilliant statement !! Yes, let's stick it to the poor minimum wage earners that are barely getting by. Or those of us who maybe have to drop kids off at daycare so we can work to support ourselves.
Clueless


I don't think it would be "funny" to see people pay more for gas - but it might be adventageous to the "minimum wage earners" to be forced into more economical modes of transportation.

All my daycare woes ended when my wife became a stay at home mom - we use less gas and are more finacially secure now than when we paid others to be part-time parents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dobber
What a brilliant statement !! Yes, let's stick it to the poor minimum wage earners that are barely getting by. Or those of us who maybe have to drop kids off at daycare so we can work to support ourselves.
Clueless


You know, when I was in High School I made a similar statement, that gas prices should go through the roof, and my parents exploded on me and said pretty much the same thing that dobber stated. Unlike dobber, they then sent me to my room.

I might have been young and naive but I wasn't wrong. If we decide as a culture to ignore reality for the sake of "providing transportation for the poor people" then things really have gotten out of hand. The truth of the matter is the automobile is not a good deal for the working poor or even the middle class.

Automobile and gas prices do not reflect the actual cost. Yes, gas is subsidized. We all know this but we don't seem to "get it". Somebody is paying for this and that somebody is us.

I've read somewhere (and I wish I knew the source so continue to stay skeptical but openminded until I can back it up) that approximately 1/3 of all American budgets go to the automobile. "Impossible!" Think about it. Cost of the vehicle, interest on the loan for the vehicle, gas, insurance, registration, maintenance, parking, etc. The part that people don't think about is the "subsidity". Our taxes pay for the roads, the gas subsidity, the cop to patrol the streets, the huge government bureaocracy involved in the monitoring of vehicles and their use. It could be as much as 30% of your income tax paid-- making it about 10% of your total income. On top of it, the car is a poor investment. It's worth less everyday; gas spent is not recoupable.

Living outside your realistic means is living in La-La Land. Everyone on this planet, I don't care if you live in the U.S., does not have the right to own a car. It's a selfish act. Rich people have helicopters, planes, big fancy boats-- should we all have helicopters because rich people have them?

I'm not rich but I also refuse to live paycheck to paycheck (or in debt) trying to appear like I am. Reality is big companies like to see us in the hot seat, spending every last penny on things they declare (and we believe) are essential. People live in the burbs because developers bought low and sold high. Don't be a sucker and believe people chose all of this using freewill and preference. We're peasants with designer clothes and fancy toys. Peasants because we work way too hard, way too long, and our livelihoods are terribly vulnerable. The least we can do is attempt to live our lives within our means-- with a bit less comfort but a lot more dignity.

I'll go to my room now.

Chuckie J.

Well said Chuckie J.

Yes, It is hard hearted to be so hard nosed about Americans hung up on high powered, monster sized machines..
Some of us addicted cyclists do cycle out of some sense,some recollection of the fuel lines we have waited in; knowing that subjecting our Nation and world to Petroleum politics and ransom is bad for our country, world, and human race. So it is easy to be so smug, when many of us consider the evidence of our petroleum addiction to be so overwhealming.
Below is some hope from report called 'Dumping crude and the New Economy' from Tom Paine reports.This report is based on the recently revealed Defense department plans in the works dealing with petroleum shortages and extreme climate changes.



First bit of this report is from the recently disclosed Dept. Of Defense report giving credence to Global Warming and Geopolitical risks for the United States.
The report continues that same straightforward talk as it delivers an assessment of our energy security situation. The reality is that we are a nation made extremely (and unnecessarily) vulnerable by our dependence on oil. Oil provides virtually all the energy for our transportation system and we import nearly 60 percent of our supply. Our trading partners in the developed world and the growing economies of China, India and South Korea are all similarly dependent and insecure. It’s this global dependence on oil that determines the threats we face: destabilized producing regions and supply routes, extreme price swings, vulnerable concentrations of infrastructure and energy scarcity among the 5/6ths of the world’s population in the developing world. Add the quite plausible “wild cards” like abrupt climate change, and this net assessment is dismal.

Since this report was published last August, America has followed its trajectory for the worst-case scenario, called “turbulent world.” The United States is mired in military protection of oil reserves around the world, our credibility is damaged, prices for gasoline and natural gas are high and upstream energy investment is off pace with projected demand. As it gets worse, the authors project, terrorist incidents will increase, investor and consumer confidence will drop, the government will shift from band-aid to band-aid and carbon emissions will rise, accelerating climate change.

Fifteen Years

The centerpiece of the report is a strategy for moving the United States from oil dependence to independence in 15 years. The authors provide the evidence to assert that a secure future will be all-electric, decentralized and efficient. The transition happens in three stages of five years each. Car engine technology moves from internal combustion to hybrids to fuel cells. On-board fuel moves from oil (gasoline, diesel) to bio-fuels (such as ethanol) to pure hydrogen. Transportation sector efficiency doubles from today’s paltry 20 percent by shifting to ethanol hybrids and further increases with vehicles designed around hydrogen fuel cell power systems. After 15 years and less than $100 billion in investment, America will have kicked its oil habit.

This is not science fiction. The technology is available to start today. The challenge is transforming the market and the infrastructure, but attitudes are already changing. The plan notes the emerging alliance between the Motor City and the Midwest: “General Motors recently signed a two-year partnership agreement with the national Ethanol Vehicle Coalition.” That’s because this path to independence makes great economic sense. A survey by the consumer-opinion gurus at J.D. Powers shows that with hybrid SUVs entering the market this year, sales are expected to expand significantly. And by growing our own fuel, we keep hundreds of billions of dollars right here at home, producing jobs and transforming America.

These Pentagon reports, the Institute for America's Future's Apollo Alliance, the International Panel on Climate Change and recent studies by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the global re-insurance giant, SwissRe, all point to it: smart growth, renewable energy and global carbon trading. It means better jobs, more security and an increasingly prosperous, just and healthy society.

Sprawl or smart growth. Fossil fuels or renewables. Subsidies or carbon markets. These are the choices facing America. This is the debate America—and the world—desperately need


A Coherent Plan

Sprawl or smart growth. Fossil fuels or renewables. Subsidies or carbon markets. These are the choices facing America. This is the debate America—and the world—desperately need


A Coherent Plan

What we also need is some forethought for the future, and the realisation that this is a problem that will need to be addressed at some point. Fact is, our current fuel source is inherently finite. There are various estimates of how long it will last, but one thing they all agree in is that it definitely won't be forever. At some point the world will need to face up to it's oil addiction, and basically, the sooner that starts to happen, the easier that transition will be. I think a gradual rise in fuel prices starting now is the best way to deal with it. At least then people might start thinking of alternatives.

Chris..Gradual increases in prices is not to be expected.It goes against world and American psyche, when it comes to someone controlling a product that is in high demand and relatively short supply...Oil barrons, railroad barrons..Being competitive, I just do not think that will happen.
The conversion does not start immediately and in a planned, controlled manner, then this will be an economic clamity.

What we also need is some forethought for the future, and the realisation that this is a problem that will need to be addressed at some point. Fact is, our current fuel source is inherently finite. There are various estimates of how long it will last, but one thing they all agree in is that it definitely won't be forever. At some point the world will need to face up to it's oil addiction, and basically, the sooner that starts to happen, the easier that transition will be. I think a gradual rise in fuel prices starting now is the best way to deal with it. At least then people might start thinking of alternatives.

One of the strange paradoxes of higher oil prices is that it actually increases the amount of oil reserves in the ground. Higher prices make more expensive extraction methods financially viable. Combined with technology advances proven reserves are higher today than 1979. This is what makes pinning down our oil supply very difficult. The number is constantly changing and being revised upward. Some small drilling companies are meeting with great success going back to old tapped out wells, applying new extraction technology to bring the wells back on-line.

I think you all make pretty good points about the price of gas/oil and our dependence on other nations, etc. But I thought I might point out a glaring contradiction. Dahon.Steve correctly points out that fuel prices, and our dependence on oil effects how we receive our goods (trucking), and how our farmers are able to produce food. In addition many of us use oil to heat our homes, and that bus you are transferring to from the subway probably runs on Deisel. All of this will affect you even if you do not own a car, so it may be safer to state things more realistically like the originator of this string and say I am doing my part.

Alright. You make a good point in there is a contradiction. In the long run, the rise in prices will have an effect on my finances. I still hold the belief that in the short run, my finances will remain the same.

If the goods at the store rise as a result of increases in trucking costs, I can subsitude for less expensive products or purchase only itmes on sale or use coupons. If oil heat goes through the roof this summer, I still won't be effected because my lease is extended for three years and when it expires, I can move to another location for greater savings if possible. Since our subways are subsidized by the State of New York, a fare increase has will not happen for another two years so high gas prices this summer will have no effect in the short term. At the moment, I pay less than 75 cents on the dollar for my subway fare after the discounts and employer transit checks so I'm not complaining. In short, a dramatic increase in oil will only have a long term effect on my finances.

The motorist on the other hand is at the mercy of increasing gas prices. Their only hope is to search for some station where they sell cheap gas. The difference with me (non-motorist) is that I have alternatives.

The centerpiece of the report is a strategy for moving the United States from oil dependence to independence in 15 years. The authors provide the evidence to assert that a secure future will be all-electric, decentralized and efficient. The transition happens in three stages of five years each. Car engine technology moves from internal combustion to hybrids to fuel cells. On-board fuel moves from oil (gasoline, diesel) to bio-fuels (such as ethanol) to pure hydrogen. Transportation sector efficiency doubles from today’s paltry 20 percent by shifting to ethanol hybrids and further increases with vehicles designed around hydrogen fuel cell power systems. After 15 years and less than $100 billion in investment, America will have kicked its oil habit.


I have no doubt that we will eventually turn to hydrogen as an alternative to gas in the future. In fact, you can probably say it's a done deal. But Hydrogen is not natural resource but a carriar of energy like my Energizer battery that powers my Walkman. The Hydrogen we are using today is produced using natural gas and it takes almost two units of gas to produce one unit of Hydrogen. Not a good tradeoff if you ask me. Then again, we're burning natural gas to generate electricity which is a waste if you ask me. This is why the price of home heating oil and natural gas are nearly the same.

Folks, When the time comes, we will begin burning millions of tons of coal each year to generate electrical power, Hydrogen and hell with the environment. After we finish all the natural gas, I predict we will turn to nuclear power to provide the rest of our energy. I can assure you, the rest of the world will have no trouble burning coal for fuel.

There is nothing to worry about folks as most of us will be long gone when all this happen. Our children is another matter entirely. All these predictions on how we will all end up driving OX CARTS to the supermarket is just over the top. Although I still think that number to "Kick the habit" of oil dependancy is WAAAAAY over 100 billion.

Will there be human suffrage when the crossover takes place. You bet. All those Arabs with all that money with all those weapons and all that free time with no oil sounds like a recipe for disaster.

But hey... If we should ever run out of gas before my time is up, I'll be riding a hybrid. Except it will be made from Trek! ;-)

Alright. You make a good point in there is a contradiction. In the long run, the rise in prices will have an effect on my finances. I still hold the belief that in the short run, my finances will remain the same.

If the goods at the store rise as a result of increases in trucking costs, I can subsitude for less expensive products or purchase only itmes on sale or use coupons. If oil heat goes through the roof this summer, I still won't be effected because my lease is extended for three years and when it expires, I can move to another location for greater savings if possible. Since our subways are subsidized by the State of New York, a fare increase has will not happen for another two years so high gas prices this summer will have no effect in the short term. At the moment, I pay less than 75 cents on the dollar for my subway fare after the discounts and employer transit checks so I'm not complaining. In short, a dramatic increase in oil will only have a long term effect on my finances.

The motorist on the other hand is at the mercy of increasing gas prices. Their only hope is to search for some station where they sell cheap gas. The difference with me (non-motorist) is that I have alternatives.

Steve your post tells us what you'll do to personally survive sustained higher oil prices. Basically it says you'll cut back on your spending. That's a natural reaction to surviving a price spike. My guess is that everyone else will do the same. If they do, we'll have a two pronged economic problem. First the high oil prices if sustained could bring on a serious round of inflation as manufacturers try to recoup their increased cost. Everything will increase in price. It will cost more to make it, box it, and ship it. Consumers caught on the wrong end of the stick will demand higher wages to keep up. This would steepen the inflation as another layer of cost is included in the cost of goods sold. But we'd have another problem, and that is an economic slow down caused by people such as yourself trying to insulate themselves from higher prices by making due with less. We'd have a pretty unhealthy recession, maybe worse. And those who think that recessions and inflation are on opposite sides of the economic net I point out 74/76 and 78/81. Both oil price related recessions where inflation went thru the roof. The downside of all this is high unemployment. I don't know what you do for a living but unless you're tenured losing your job and not being able to find another will severely limit your alternatives. But you are right, it would take some time for this to happen. Depending on the financial strength of your employer maybe a year or more. Of course if you are tenured you have found one of the few safe havens in an economic meltdown. Congratulations!

One of the strange paradoxes of higher oil prices is that it actually increases the amount of oil reserves in the ground.

The amount of oil reserves in the ground won't change because it costs more. There's only ever going to be so much that can be extraced by whatever means. We don't know how much that is, but everyone seems to agree that it's finite -- that is the whole point.



This is what makes pinning down our oil supply very difficult. The number is constantly changing and being revised upward. Some small drilling companies are meeting with great success going back to old tapped out wells, applying new extraction technology to bring the wells back on-line.

This is actually what I just said above, we don't know how much there actually is. The question is whether we want to gamble on how much there might be, or accept that it's finite, and find other alternatives.

[QUOTE=tom cotter]One of the strange paradoxes of higher oil prices is that it actually increases the amount of oil reserves in the ground. Higher prices make more expensive extraction methods financially viable.

Tom... The reports I recall reading..Yes, extraction methods become more viable with higher prices. But,the trade off is, it takes more energy to retrive that energy. So the yield is far smaller.
But a web site I recall reading.."Brain Food." Said the reserves in Iraq, Saudi Arabia might be enormous, but by the end of the decade finds in Scotland, Mexico, Venezuela, and Alaska will be in decline..Giving greater power to the Middle East and it's political problems.

The amount of oil reserves in the ground won't change because it costs more. There's only ever going to be so much that can be extraced by whatever means. We don't know how much that is, but everyone seems to agree that it's finite -- that is the whole point.




This is actually what I just said above, we don't know how much there actually is. The question is whether we want to gamble on how much there might be, or accept that it's finite, and find other alternatives.

Agree and agree. There is only so much oil on the planet. From where I sit I'd say we do accept that the supply is finite. But again I'd have to say that there is a correlation between price, available supply, and also the impetus to find alternatives. As long as it is cheaper to drill deeper and find ways around geological roadblocks that even a few years ago blocked access to viable reserves, more expensive alternative fuel technologies will languish.

Tom. I agree. The oil barrons will fleece us until the very last drop..My concern.The switch to alternative sources will not just happen overnight.
Someone better plan for the conversion and not ignore reality before it bites us all.

Some may think environmentalists to be far out tree huggers as some here have suggested. I recall Jimmy Carter comparing energy conservation to a national security issue. I have always agreed.
Below is a very sobering web site about pending economic doom..I wish it were not so too.


http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/

Richard Heinberg
Santa Rosa, California
MuseLetter 135 / May 2003

The Petroleum Plateau

Political-economic events during the ’70s caused a preliminary oil peak. The following global recession suppressed demand for energy, while efficiency measures (increasing the insulation of homes and office buildings, lowering highway speed limits, etc.) stretched the benefits from temporarily expensive fuels. Oil production and consumption took a brief dive after the 1973 OPEC oil embargo (falling from a peak of 56 million barrels per day in 1974), then began to recover—though on average the growth rate was lower than in previous years. Production reached a new peak of 60 mb/d in 1979. Then, following the 1979 Iranian revolution, production and consumption plummeted again and did not begin to increase until 1984; production did not again match its 1979 levels until 1996. In the four years following that, production of conventional oil inched higher still, to a new peak of nearly 64 mb/d in 2000 (the figure for total petroleum liquids, including non-conventional sources, by then surpassed 76 mb/d).

This historical period—in which conventional oil production has been, when averaged, virtually flat—will probably eventually be seen as the first stage in an energy plateau encompassing the period from 1973 to perhaps 2015 or 2020—nearly a half a century. During this plateau period, production and consumption of conventional oil will be seen to have crested and bottomed several times between the extremes of 64 million barrels per day and 50 mb/d.

We are living in the middle of this historic energy plateau right now. The plateau began because of political and economic events. Soon, probably within two to seven years, geological factors will begin to constrain oil extraction. Even sooner, within the next few months, natural gas depletion will begin to wreak economic havoc in North America. These constraints will intensify and gradually gain hold over the overall world energy supply, so that by 2020 at the very latest, and possibly by 2010, global net energy availability will be on an inexorable downward trend somewhat mirroring the historic upswing of the early 20th century.

The fact that we have arrived at an energy plateau means that two centuries of energy growth are at an end, but the century of decline has not yet begun. We are in a place betwixt and between, neither this nor that. This is a unique period that brings unique opportunities and challenges; it is a temporal terrain whose navigation will determine whether our path down the energy curve is quick and disastrous, or measured and deliberate.

...............

• The fourth stage (2000–present) represents a period of increasing economic constraints due partly to the gradual appearance of actual resource limits (the peak in production of North Sea oil and of the non-OPEC countries in aggregate), to political and geopolitical events (the ascendancy of the neoconservatives in the US; 9/11 and its aftermath; the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions); and to diminishing returns from the strategy of corporate globalization. This period is also characterized by increasing reliance on more expensive non-conventional petroleum sources
• The fifth stage will begin when it is clear that geological limits are constraining economic activity and will continue to do so despite any and all efforts. The first sign of stage five will likely come next year with natural gas shortages in North America.

Steve your post tells us what you'll do to personally survive sustained higher oil prices. Basically it says you'll cut back on your spending. That's a natural reaction to surviving a price spike. My guess is that everyone else will do the same. If they do, we'll have a two pronged economic problem. First the high oil prices if sustained could bring on a serious round of inflation as manufacturers try to recoup their increased cost. Everything will increase in price. It will cost more to make it, box it, and ship it. Consumers caught on the wrong end of the stick will demand higher wages to keep up. This would steepen the inflation as another layer of cost is included in the cost of goods sold. But we'd have another problem, and that is an economic slow down caused by people such as yourself trying to insulate themselves from higher prices by making due with less. We'd have a pretty unhealthy recession, maybe worse. And those who think that recessions and inflation are on opposite sides of the economic net I point out 74/76 and 78/81. Both oil price related recessions where inflation went thru the roof. The downside of all this is high unemployment. I don't know what you do for a living but unless you're tenured losing your job and not being able to find another will severely limit your alternatives. But you are right, it would take some time for this to happen. Depending on the financial strength of your employer maybe a year or more. Of course if you are tenured you have found one of the few safe havens in an economic meltdown. Congratulations!

Tom: Your last statement "Congratulations" made me laugh!! ;-)

I agree with your assumption that inflation is on the way (thanks to rising fuel prices) and the Federal Reserve will not be able to stop it by lowering interest rates. However, your assumption that employees will ask for more money during this recession is incorrect as high unemployment and the lack of hiring created a glut of people who will work for less. I've seen my wages drop almost 20% in the last three years and know plenty of people who are working harder and longer for less!

It should not concern you that people like me who are trying to "insulate" ourselves from rising prices will damage the economy. We won't. The masses are still spending like crazy (which makes you happy I'm sure) regardless to the dire economic conditions the future holds. This past recession followed by the jobless recovery should have prepared them to live on less but I don't see it happening at all! When you think about, very few people are saving in the U.S. Quite the contrary, most are spending like never before for new homes, cars while maxing out those credit cards.

This hyper "consumerism" that you want me to be a part of to keep the economy from falling into another economic slow down is a trap that I refuse to participate. What's causing this "economic slowdown" you speak is due to the fact that Washington is spending BILLIONS fighting two wars while forcing the cities and states to pick up the costs by cutting back funding in transportation, road construction, education etc. We have outsourced hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs overseas and will continue to so in the future as corporate america has found a large source of cheap labor. Our open door policy of "free trade" has seen hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in manufacturing only to be replaced by lower paying retail and service sector jobs. Furthermore, Washington in the past four years has NOT put up a viable long term economic recovery plan other than tax cuts for corporations and those with upper incomes.

It's not the savers who are the problem Tom. If there is an economic meltdown, just blame the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Steven

I agree with your assumption that inflation is on the way (thanks to rising fuel prices) and the Federal Reserve will not be able to stop it by lowering interest rates.

The typical response to stem inflation is to RAISE interest rates, not lower them, they have plenty of room to raise! ;) Either way, I don't think inflation will be a factor once Peak Oil hits. Here's why: say the equilibrium price for oil becomes $80/bl, causing for example 20% inflation, oil prices will then have to rise to $100 as there is no spare supply and inflation made oil cheaper at $80 a barrel. Also, the powers that be are RICH, inflation hurts them way more than the working class, thus expect ANY measures to be taking to preserve their wealth, think back to 20% interest rates. Taking this into account is the #1 reason why I am focussed on getting out of debt as fast as possible (difficult for a 26 year old with a wife and child to support and a mortgage). Happy times ahead... :rolleyes:

The typical response to stem inflation is to RAISE interest rates, not lower them, they have plenty of room to raise! ;) Either way, I don't think inflation will be a factor once Peak Oil hits. Here's why: say the equilibrium price for oil becomes $80/bl, causing for example 20% inflation, oil prices will then have to rise to $100 as there is no spare supply and inflation made oil cheaper at $80 a barrel. :

Good one. I'm glad you corrected me on the inflation issue in relation to higher interest rates.

However. My position remains the same when it comes to hyper-consumerism. I hope Tom is saving for retirement as the Neocons in Washington are already talking about making cuts in social security after the election. For those generation Xers like myself, there may not be any SS when we retire so you better have savings. It looks like you might have to work until you're 90 to collect a $500.00 dollar a month check in 2035! Folks, forget trying to save the economy by spending every cent and take care of #1.

What a brilliant statement !! Yes, let's stick it to the poor minimum wage earners that are barely getting by. Or those of us who maybe have to drop kids off at daycare so we can work to support ourselves.

How about all those people who live outside the cities and urban centers. While our tax dollars go to subsidize your public transportation, we have no alternative but the automobile. Especially in the dead of winter.

Clueless

We need changes and its gonna be a little painful during the transition fo rsome people, it always is. So if you happen to be affected iim sorry but thats the way it is. The tax subsidies for urban transpoprtation are miniscule compared to whats spent subsidizing the auto. So your point there is wrong. When you said "clueless" I can only assume you were referring to yourself. It has nothing to do with this but I ran into one of my favorite Mark Twain quotes today "'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

Tom: Your last statement "Congratulations" made me laugh!! ;-)

I agree with your assumption that inflation is on the way (thanks to rising fuel prices) and the Federal Reserve will not be able to stop it by lowering interest rates. However, your assumption that employees will ask for more money during this recession is incorrect as high unemployment and the lack of hiring created a glut of people who will work for less. I've seen my wages drop almost 20% in the last three years and know plenty of people who are working harder and longer for less!

It should not concern you that people like me who are trying to "insulate" ourselves from rising prices will damage the economy. We won't. The masses are still spending like crazy (which makes you happy I'm sure) regardless to the dire economic conditions the future holds. This past recession followed by the jobless recovery should have prepared them to live on less but I don't see it happening at all! When you think about, very few people are saving in the U.S. Quite the contrary, most are spending like never before for new homes, cars while maxing out those credit cards.

This hyper "consumerism" that you want me to be a part of to keep the economy from falling into another economic slow down is a trap that I refuse to participate. What's causing this "economic slowdown" you speak is due to the fact that Washington is spending BILLIONS fighting two wars while forcing the cities and states to pick up the costs by cutting back funding in transportation, road construction, education etc. We have outsourced hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs overseas and will continue to so in the future as corporate america has found a large source of cheap labor. Our open door policy of "free trade" has seen hundreds of thousands of jobs lost in manufacturing only to be replaced by lower paying retail and service sector jobs. Furthermore, Washington in the past four years has NOT put up a viable long term economic recovery plan other than tax cuts for corporations and those with upper incomes.

It's not the savers who are the problem Tom. If there is an economic meltdown, just blame the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Steven

Steven, let me apologize. When I read your post I took it that you were saying an economic meltdown wouldn't affect you. I viewed that as an uninformed opinion. As is obvious from your response you are not uninformed.

I'm still looking over my post to figure out where I said I want you to be part of hyper consumerism or indicated that I support irresponsible spending? Honestly, I don't care or worry about how you or anyone else spends their money. There is a book "The Millionaire Next Door" by Thomas Stanley that comes close to my own opinions on household money management. If you've read it then you know it's message preaches financial responsibility.


As for inflation and recessions, hopefully we won't see either for years to come. But, I gotta tell ya, the PPI numbers released this week are scarey.

What here in California they are saying gas prices rose fifty cents because of lost production in Venezuela and slight cut backs of production in OPEC countries...
Can you imagine 8 years from now and those same cut backs on top of lost production in Alaska and Scotland. Fifty cents would be magnified to god knows what...
Remember how shortage caused beef to increase 3-4 fold.
In economics 101 they used to say increased prices raises production under capitalist models.
Unless we demand conservation, alternative energy, alternative transportation through innovation by business and government, we are screwed and Economics 101 texts need be re-written to reflect the era of cartels.
I wonder how long lines at the pump effects the prices of Co-Motion touring bikes.?I just hope buses have trailers for bicycles on them so I can ride to work every day...

Excellent. Your analysis is better than mine.

Robert Moses and his anti-transit mentality still effects New York City to this day. The bridges built during his time do NOT have subways or pedestrian crosswalks. Unbelievable.

I'm going to get a hold of Asphalt Nation soon and Jane Jacobs classic.

Top news on MSN.com is an article on how truckers in California will not move cargo unless the price of gas goes down or their rates go up. It appears the trucking industry has cut the price of their services so low, even a modest increase in diesel fuel puts most of them out of business. In "Trains" magazine this month, they predict an increase in heavy rail because trucking good across the country is about to become alot more expensive making freight transport an attractive alternative. (Can we say inflation!) It doesn't stop there. Farmers are also feeling the squeeze as their tactors need the same fuel that's been going throught the roof in recent months. Has anyone noticed a silence in Washington as our "friends" in Saudia Arabia (Opec) are decreasing production to drive up the price?

Patrick A's analysis was dead on target but it only works if there is a never ending supply of cheap fuel.

YOU ALL NEED TO READ "HOME FROM NOWHERE," BY JAMES HOWARD KUNSTLER. HELL, I'LL GIVE YOU MY COPY!

I own all of Jim Kunstler's urban commentary books. He's a great guy - I've seen him speak and have chatted with him over email at length. I usually don't recommend them at first because they might be an acquired taste for some and his torch carrying banter is sometimes just a little one sided. Regardless, though, I love his wit and keen observations. Go to his website www.kunstler.com , some of his stuff is really funny - like "Eyesore of the Month".

PS, you might want to turn off the CAPS LOCK. Some folks might think you're yelling. ;)

Sincere Advice needed:

This is a lot of cool information. Unfortunately, I'm not retiring for decades. Ok many of decades. I'll have to have heat in my apartment, condo, home. I'll still have to carpool carloads of children.

Change begins with me and my generation...So I, commute 2-3X week and save a tankload/week and STiLL have to drive.

OK So what action should I take? Where are the battery or ethenol cars and fuel?


PS I'm a woman and don't know if I'm strong enough to pull an ox-cart yet :D

Those interested might note..The web site I gave with all the negative economic news about energy supplies.
Kunstler is a contributor to that site.

[QUOTE=vrkelley]Sincere Advice needed:

This is a lot of cool information. Unfortunately, I'm not retiring for decades. Ok many of decades. I'll have to have heat in my apartment, condo, home. I'll still have to carpool carloads of children.

Change begins with me and my generation...

VR...I do not think change can occur that drastically. I just think we should start. Ask ourselves, do we really need that 8 miles per gallon Hummer. Downsize cars..I think the average fleet mileage going up to European standards would save that two gallons a week.
Can coal/coal tar technology be made clean. That would save the terrible waste of oil being burned for electricity. Subways/ trams/buses could cut the volume of traffic on our gridlocked freeways by a tremendous percent.
If I could get a reliable bus with an assured bike rack for half my distance to work( 26 miles one way.), then I would commute by bike to work most every day.
I get on the local commuter trains ocassionally, I see bike commuter combinations as being very common. Wish the trains went my way..
I think it very easy to cut gas consumption by 20% -a very easy job, if we just had the will. Then a national plan of alternative energy..This could maybe extend our energy resources 20 years.?
This would end the Middle East oil noose about the world's neck and make us all healthier. We might have to walk a couple blocks per day.
And what good would come for us as consumers...We take our cars on vaction, the price of gas might be cut 33%.But I doubt the oil barrons want that.

Well lets take a less emotional look at the effect of gas(fuel) prices.

Fuel to transport goods to your local market increases 25%. The price of those goods increases 35%.

The cost of fuel is in everyone's pocket regardless of your ownership of a motor vehicle! That is until "Scotty" can get those trasporters working! :)

Change begins with me and my generation...

VR...I do not think change can occur that drastically. I just think we should start. Ask ourselves, do we really need that 8 miles per gallon Hummer. Downsize cars..

So ... if I understood you CY, most of us bikers are already ahead of the curve, so we can coast. Somehow, I feel I should be doing more.